Tuesday, April 27, 2010

A watermark is any recognizable text, logo or pattern that appears over an image to identify the owner of the image and generally used to prevent unauthorized reuse of the image. Watermarks are usually transparent and can be difficult to remove. The difficulty or ease of removal depends on the content of the image and the position, color, size etc of the watermark.

There are several resources out there that teaches you how to remove watermark from pictures, but most of them are old. Although these guides are still relevant, in light of some new tools that has recently become available in our hands, I decided a new guide was necessary. Hence this tutorial.

Removing water mark using Photoshop CS5

The new iteration of Photoshop, Creative Suite 5 or CS5 in short, includes some handy tools that really helps in such tasks as removing watermarks. You must have already heard because we wrote about this tool on Instant Fundas. It’s called Content Aware Fill.

For our example we will use an image from iStockPhoto and try to remove the watermark right across the face of the image.

Disclaimer: The use of materials from iStockphoto is for illustrative purposes only. We do not encourage stealing of copyrighted images from iStockphoto or from any other sources.

Open the image in Photoshop CS5, and select the “Spot Healing Brush Tool” from the toolbar. You can also press J to select it.

Select the option Content Aware Fill on the toolbar at the top.

Press [ or ] to increase or decrease the size of the brush as required, and carefully paint it over the watermark.

Release it, and the line is gone.

If the result is unsatisfactory, undo it or go back in History and repeat. Use the smallest brush size as possible to get good results.

For larger areas we will use the lasso tool. Select the watermark to remove using the Lasso Tool (L). Notice that I selected only a part of the watermark. This is because the image behind the watermark is not uniform. To get the best results work with small areas of the watermark. In this example, I left out the horn of the skull since it has a different texture.

Now press D. Make sure “Content Aware” is selected under “Use” and press OK.

Remember, you can always undo and repeat the steps. Here is the final result with the complete watermark removed. Not perfect but passable.

Removing water mark using GIMP

Download the Resynthesizer plugin and copy the executable called resynthesizer.exe to gimp-2.0\lib\gimp\plug-ins\ directory.

Download this script (from Newslily) and copy it to gimp-2.0\share\gimp\scripts\

Restart GIMP to reload the scripts.

Open the image on GIMP and using the lasso tool to select the watermark. Again notice that I’m doing this by selecting smaller chunks of area and not the entire logo.

Now click on Filters>Enhance>Heal Selection.

Specify the radius to take the selection from. The default is 50 and should work fine. If it doesn’t, play around with the radius until you get the desired result. Once the heal is applied, the watermark should be gone.

Carry on with the rest of the image carefully selecting the areas to remove. This is the final result. Not bad, right?

So which is better: GIMP or Photoshop?

Neither is perfect and both performs similarly. Sometimes GIMP gives better control as you have the option to specify the cloning radius. On the other hand, Photoshop gives you the option of different modes – Multiply, darken, etc. The Spot Healing Brush tool is also easier to operate on tiny areas than the lasso tool.

Yes there are times you want to remove watermarks without stealing. I hate to buy photos just to use in mockup and then never make money of them. If I could remove the watermark then I can purchase the photo that I actually need not all the other ones I wasted money on.Thank you for the tutorial.

0. First, install greasemonkey and a script, you can find here: http://www.jayhollywood.com.au/greasemonkey-vs-istock/

1. It will allow you to view a big full size preview once you are logged in. Its not flawles, but far better than the basic preview box.

2. Printscreen that and paste it into Photoshop CS5

3. Crop the image

4. Make a shape with the pen tool around the center of the watermark

5. Copy the shape across the width as many times as needed. You just have to be precise on the first and last and than distribute horizontaly with the move tool option.

6. Select all the shapes and copy them verticaly

7. Ctrl+click the path in the path panel to get a selection

8. Shift+F5 to fill the selection. Select Content-aware (this is only available in the latest Photoshop CS5. If you have an older version, you may want to try the patch tool, or a healing brush)

Now the only thing left are the lines. I am looking for an istockphoto watermark pattern, to get rid of them too. Alternative might be to use filter remove dust and scratches. I just use it so make better mockups for my clients and I always pay for the images before finalizing the project. Its sometimes difficult to explain to a client that it will look better once it is finished, thats why I do it like this.

iStock is really the "Wal-Mart" of photo depots. They steal a lot of the profit from the actual photographer. Still, I'm an advocate of "free" on the internet. If I really like something, i'll buy it to show my support.

i personally has some of my own work stolen by istock site. when i contacted them to remove it from their website, they told me that i have no legal proof that i own them! i don't live in the states and i can't afford to pay a lawyer in the states.. but this is unfair

I am a grammar school student, who is regularly asked to produce PowerPoint presentations and leaflets on certain subjects. To remove a watermark for the sole reason of using it in a homework assignment is legal under the "Fair Usage" act. And even if it isn't, I would like to hope that a judge would laugh in the face of any image-owner who found it necessary to bring a schoolchild to court over such a trivial matter.

However, using this method of watermark removal to render an image usable for commerical use (i.e. in a way that would profit the illegal user) is certainly illegal and should not be encouraged. But please, bear in mind that there is such thing as Fair Use.

You closed minded idiots. This article is demonstrating a technique, how ignorant of you to assume that in all scenarios, removing the watermark is an illegal activity.I'm removing watermarks from a set of pictures of products that I'm reselling. The original distributor doesn't have the non-watermarked copies, and TOLD ME to remove the watermark.

Oh, and I bet everyone here bought their CS5 as well, right? Some people are so naive.

I get a kick out of people pontificating about "stealing" somebody's precious advertising photos! Yes, in the USA there is the doctrine of "fair use", and yes, there are a ton of businesses - like real estate agents - who routinely watermark their ad copy just because they can! (This is much like the gov't drones who stamp everything they touch "Secret" - regardless of its trivial content!)

These are the sorts of mindless legalisms that destroy respect for the Law in general. If somebody wants to build up a collection of illustrative photos for their own personal use - no commercial distribution contemplated! - I say "do it"! I personally maintain a collection of web photos of antiques and examples of old architectural styles and details, and I will continue to defy - and withhold my business from - those companies that watermark such photos indiscriminately!

For a photographer, photographs are his livelihood. Think of his photographs as your car. Now ask yourself the following question. If some stranger "borrowed" your car just becaused he needed it for 10 minutes, would you still call it "fair use"? Let's get real. You need a picture, you take it with your camera, or you buy it.

Yeah because cars can be duplicated exactly with no differences at all for free. Its nothing like a car, unless somehow magically it deletes the picture from your hard drive whenever someone else downloads it.

Also, if I need a picture of a lion I'm not going to fly to Africa and risk my life.

I have been using photo tools since I can remember 15yrs at least and I get asked by owners to help knock out the time stamp or whatever needs fixing. Many times I just improve pics from the net and send samples back to the owner with the mark intact.

There are ways to encode your pictures so they can't be right clicked.

If you really consider the big picture. There really isn't any profit in stealing someones work. You can make a lot more selling it! LOL.

Still I think the lesson is a good one and a watermark can be added in a corner still giving credit to owner.

I have copied and pasted the script at least 3 times and still do not see heal selection in the enhance section of filters ; lkk comment: creates stencil selection in a temp dupe image to pass as source drawable to plugin

I think its funny how all these people are getting worked up over people using image editing software. No, forget people who actually rob banks and steal cars, this guy removed a watermark, I'm gonna call my lawyer.

If I published a tutorial wherein I raped somebody, would you say, "Hey! He's just showing how to use a penis, calm down."? The fact is, this tutorial encourages stealing stock photos, plain and simple. Dodge this fact however you like, it won't make it any less true.

Good Tutorial, I used this to refresh my mind about how to remove a watermark from images. It isn't actually illegal showing this technique nor using to be honest.I only use for removing a watermark from an image from which I am using the image for my website for a College Project, Nothing More, Nothing Less.

I can't think of any reason why anyone would need to remove a watermark other than to STEAL an image. Taking something that doesn't belong to you or using something without permission is stealing. Why do you think the watermark was put on the image in the first place? Because the rightful owner of the image does not want it to be used without permission, duh! This is like a tutorial for how to remove the security tags that retail stores use to prevent shoplifting.

A watermark exists for a reason, for all those making excuses to remove it. A bigger concern is all the people refusing to pay pro photo prices and trying to print a low res photo from the website after removing the watermark. So yes, continue to put more food on your table while taking it from mine. You make your salary, I expect to be fairly paid for my work. If you feel my prices are too high, book someone you can afford. Don't steal my livelihood.

This is a fantastic tutorial on why as a photographer I will be pasting my logo over the entire image from now on! If you're gonna remove my watermark, I'm gonna at the very least make it take hours and hours. Since I've already spent hours creating the image, it's only fair that if you are going to steal my image, that you have to work hard for it.

"But the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a great alternative to recover damages for infringements. The DMCA can be found in Section 1200 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Section 1202 makes it illegal for someone to remove your “copyright management information” from your photo to disguise the infringement when used. The great news is that the copyright management information need only be your name, identifying information, or copyright notice to qualify."

Source: http://bit.ly/o1M0c<--that is called attribution, which is a part of fair use. For those of you students stealing images for your projects, I really hope you aren't studying copyright law.

I can't think of any reason why you would need to LEGALLY remove a watermark from ANY image. When using for school, why can't you leave the watermark on the image? It doesn't detract from the image. If you wish to own/possess unwatermarked images, then BUY THEM legally.

Unless you own the actual image where you are removing the watermark, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever remove a watermark plain and simple. You are stealing from someone (istock, photographer, whoever took the image). It is as basic as right and wrong.

I DON'T believe it!! Showing people how to do this is a DISGRACE!! W.T.F. are you thinking!Why do we put copyright notices on in the first place???? Will the next article be 'How to rob banks' and get away with it.....

Amazing - if you need to use a watermarked image for something like a school project, then ask the photographer. They might even give you a unmarked copy (or at least a more descrete watermark). If it's for a sales demo 'mockup', then leave the watermark there, no-one cares.

Although it is illegal to do so, let me remind you that the photos that are unpurchased on Istock are small. so even if you do steal it and try to print it, it will be very small, otherwise very pixelated.As a full time photographer myself, I pay all my bills doing this job, so I make sure that if people are smart enough to edit out my watermark, it will look like garbage if printed unless done so as a wallet or smaller. :)

Well I have a story where I found a high school cheerleading group removed the watermark of 2 images to be used as promotional material for them. They could have purchased the images but they chose not to. The legal battle was very short as they settled outside of court.

I received $9,320.

So think again if you are going to steal photographers work. We have ways of finding and will punish you with the law for theft.

Oh and they also tried claiming the "fair usage" right too oddly enough. That and a quote of the human rights act. Idiots.

because it was posted in a photo forum and I can't beleive someone posted this as a use for this tool. Never remove watermarks, theres no reason to other than you want something for nothing. Your being a tool!!

I had more fun reading the comments than the article. I have no problem with the stealing other people's work part but it's just too much work. There are easier alternatives, and who goes to all that trouble for a school project? Still... I guess it might have other uses. So I guess what I'm trying to say is... you're all right! :P

Thanks for the tutorial. Im using it on a photo that was taken of me playing for my local team, taken without my permission, and then asking me to pay £20 for a photo of myself? Sod that, No-one has the right to sell images of me for thier own profit, and having the cheek to offer to sell me it also

I wonder if all you holier than thou in these posts or pro photographers posting here got the permission of your subjects before photographing them, or asked a building owner if it was ok if you made money off of his building image or a statue you photographed, etc. I wonder if the models in your photos get residuals every time you sell a photo?

I think the answer here is "Sometimes" but I would bet not most of the time.

You take advantage of them and someone else takes advantage of you.. It's human nature.

If you want to sell your images without them getting ripped off, don't use this technology!

I laugh every time I read the word steal and people trying to compare copying an image to stealing a physical product like a car or clothing. When someone copies your photo, that have not stolen anything. You still have the original. I'm not saying it is right that they have infringed on your copyright, but it is not theft. Theft is when they break into your residence and steal the original and now you don't have it anymore.

You are always going to have people copying your works because people dislike the idea that someone can make something once and collect revenue on it forever. Right or wrong, that is the mentality. On the other hand, I think you'll find that people are prepared to pay photographers to take pictures if the rights to the image belong to the person footing the bill.

Who is stealing, me or the photographer? I hired a photographer who was a school associate of my fiance' to take pictures at our wedding. She worked for about 2 hours taking photographs. She charged us $250.00. Let's see, $125.00 per hour...digital camera, so no cost to her for film. We were on a very tight budget, so even that was a reach for us. But we wanted nice pictures for this "one-time" event so we paid it. 3 weeks later 100 pictures are posted (not all the pictures I wanted taken are posted yet) on my (now) wife's Facebook page. Some sort of picture album or something, I don't quite understand all of Facebook yet. A lot of the pictures simply STINK! Quite a number of pictures don't have everyone looking at the camera when they should be, some pictures are off center, some pictures are messy (clothes are not situated right...like buttons on tux shirt are not straight, or bow tie is crooked). Some of the pictures were taken at an angle where my wife and I are not square with the bottom of the picture. Imagine hanging the picture on our wall with the corners of the picture pointing up, down, left and right. If we hung the picture square with the wall like normal people usually do, our heads would be pointing Northeast! What the heck! To top things off, we were under the impression that we would get a disc with all our pictures on it. Nope!! We have to pay $25.00 for each 8 x 10 picture if we want a picture. There isn't even a choice for a smaller size. Want bigger though and she has that...the prices get into the hundreds (plural)! Are you shi**ing me!!! I pay her $125.00 per hour (who the heck gets paid that?) and I don't even get one lousy picture? She wants more $$$ now, or no pictures? What a scam! By the way, what the heck is a sitting fee? How about a "walking through the door fee", or a "turning on my camera fee", or a "using the flash" fee!! I'm getting angrier the more I think about it. Guess I go to all our guests and ask them for copies of the pictures they took, bet they will look nicer and won't cost $25.00 each! Like I said, who is really the one stealing?

I'm sorry, but you think just on the shot moment/hour price, and not all the other steps that are behind it, such as pre and pos processing, expensive equipment, photographer knowledge, costs to go and come back, annoying wedding guests in the way taking pictures using mobile phones and messing the photographer work, sometimes photographer assistant, and so on. And you have got to be kidding that for $125/hour you want a real guests and not models with buttons on tux straight. It was a capture of the real moment and not a model shot section in your wedding. Your guests should be wearing better. :0) Next time DIY or ask to all guests do it for you for free and do not hire a professional.

Haha, oh, wow. I have to say I expected the conversation on this post to be somewhat insipid but not to the level that I'd actually want to join in the fail.

First and foremost, the assertions that stealing a digital photograph is like stealing a physical object are a complete fallacy. Let me put this more simply: is downloading the photo the same as breaking into your house and depriving you of the original copy? No, it's not even close. Yet somehow in the spirit of drama the downloading of a $0.99 photo needs to be likened to the theft of a $10,000 car, right?

On the other hand, if someone posts a tutorial about how to properly aim & fire a firearm, by the same logic being applied to this tutorial, haven't they provided the public with a manual to murder? I mean, we should get law enforcement on that kind of stuff. By merely applying the simple directions in the tutorial you could line up the sights of a firearm on a person, thanks to the clear and specific instructions, and shoot them. Obviously the only possible use of that.

So, similarly, the only application of this tutorial is stealing artwork. Because, just like firearms, nobody could possibly have a use for this tutorial other than the theft (or, as one user idiotically exaggerates, rape) of artists.

Right?

Back to reading MySQL tutorials (to learn SQL Injection, obviously the only use of such tutorials).

I looked this up because I wanted to see what my senior pictures looked like without the watermarks all over them (since the company put FOUR on every single photo.) I'm not using this illegally. Shut the fuck up.And I'm sure everyone yelling that this is illegal has done something illegal in their lives before. Stop being hypocrites.

Drama queens all of ya. I worked it out myself how to do it in boring old microsoft paint...lol.not rocket science...open in paint zoom it out bigget colour picker use that pixel by pixel..or just select areas of the same colour..use copy paste to fill over the water marks. Bring picture back to original size. a lot of studio photos online are a scabby average of 25kb so the quality won't be there to start with anyway....ha ha ha ha

lol what do you do when you wanna know sumfing....WHY GOOGLE IT OF COURSE!!!!!! people with studio loggins of your photos and can't right click...use DownloadHelper..its free, works a treat in 30 secs have all your photos folder by folder on your decktop in no-time. Small photo files tho low kbs not great but plenty big enuff say 5 x 7 quality for online social networks and little picture frames or a scrap book album of your wedding.

it really is just a tutorial folks...no need for the 'burn in hell theft illegal copyright bickering..it's just a tutorial on removing a watermark...stop blowing it out of proportion and find something interesting to do then play wannabe internet police :P great tutorial by the way!

Watermarks are not always used for the sole purpose of copyright. Sometimes cameras add a date or timestamp to pictures and sometimes you later want those removed. Therefore this tutorial can be legally used on these type of pictures. I think the people upset about this tutorial are probably patent layers see dollar signs!

Hope this helps me. I exported my most current photo's with a watermark, but forgot to save an original copy without my watermark. (YAY ME!) So needless to say, I have to figure out how to get my "proof" watermark off, so I can get them printed in original form! Thanks for the example.

For those that say get over it, I work in F/X but also in photography - its *not* just a picture, its our property; and it doesn't matter whether you planned to use it in school or resell it - its still theft.

this is awesome, and sorry to all those people that are worried about getting sued, i dont wanna have watermarks on pictures of ME and i dont wanna have to pay 100 dollars just to post the thing up on facebook... just saying

I have to agree with the photographers and designers of art, I'm not a pro photographer or digital artist, I just do it for pleasure but I do appreciate how much time it takes to make great photographs; I've been back to one place in excess of 100 times to get the right photo, you can't pause nature lol!

Then there is the editing of a Photo, even the images I upload are cropped but I keep the original uncropped photo to prove its mine.

Next up is digital art especially vector art, now that's a skill and you also need a good artistic eye, learning the program takes time too and invaribably you need a compliment of programs to make the best art possible. Creating the artwork can take hours and hours and the only way you would re-coup wage for the hours spent is to sell multiple copies.

I think the cost of suing someone for $9000 is very disproportionate, and shows the greedy side of the system, I didn't here them say I just want what I was due, but in court commonsense is not a prerequisite and this just shows the mentality of people today, everyone is just waiting for that "infringement" to get $9000 for an image they would likely only make a $200 on. Ultimately it becomes dog eat dog and moralities go out the window.

It's so amusing to see people throwing shit at the tutorial and its author and screaming "thiefs!" and "stealing!" and "this is OUR property!" and what a crime it is - to remove a watermark from a picture. When there are hundreds and thousands of people killed, tortured, robbed and raped each day either by US and EU forces themselves or thanks to the chaos they caused in Lybia, Auganistan and other places all around the worlds. Why won't anyone scream about THESE crimes and cite laws forbidding doing THESE things, eh, you, a bunch of sorry morons?

Cuz they don't value life, lives, people, families. They'll shout and crow over the horrid theft of pictures all day long. First off, they're trolls, and this gets attention, drama going, trolls main diet. They're also incredibly naive and ignorant, as like to believe in a superstitious soul-theft from a photograph, as TRY to understand. And you get someone with no higher education to accept this concept that knowledge is without sin. That it does not promote wrong, that censoring is an abhorrent way to live. It says the only way we can manage our selves is removing the temptation entirely. Catcher in the Rye, Farenheight 451, A light in the Attic...just books, banned so many places. They value neither life nor information, for its and their sake.

Second, to be fair to them, the murders, deaths by war and terrorism, starvation and sickness is an unknown to them. We, mostly, all had something stole from us, or lost money somehow. We can understand and feel an anger over that. As people, it's good that a community at times for issues, makes clear what they deem acceptable. So they make sure that theft is still not accepted. None here know death. And there are Laws, Rulers (caps intended), to handle these things, Armies and Authorities too. And all that stuff is huge, out of our hands. We'd all have to go over there, and physically detain those killers. Then what? Lifetime incarceration? Hope for rehab. Exile out of sight? Become hypocrites and execute them? It never ends. Just question after question.

And they lose the certainty of being backed up. Don't' steal is universal. Murder too, but that's still not an every minute thing one in many places lives. Slippery slope, where is the line drawn? How far should I bellow my outrage on this score? Til (nobody wants to be this guy) I'm the only one pipsqueak piping. As the crowd behind me, give uncomfortable, not-in-the-other's-eyes glances, and begin to break up. The lone, cavalier for right, suddenly alone and cut off, usually slinking out of the spotlight.

Some of this is known, but you may not have thought of it entirely, or in this light. How long could the world remain awry if we all worked together? Conceivably that inestimable placatory 'not long now'. As people of the world, even the state of RI. No one will in a majority fashion decide the best way of life, for just even one county of Rhodillanders. Ever.

Last, they stood up for Good, Right, the (country-ian's) way, Justice. They can feel like they added to the positive balance in the world today. And as small as they are, and what they 'did' was, they did 'something'. Cuz obviously a technology or tool that can be used for nefarious or harmful things is only, EVER (Ever ever ever ever ever - Chris Tucker Rush Hour) used for its evil, malignant purposes.

Jerry closes his show with 'be good, and be good or take care of each other', some pithy nonsense. He did spend an hour and more riling up people who at most woulda glared at each other in town, mostly into all out brawls. Always a blow or two before the incapable and sad specimens are mostly restrained. Til one of them decides to fire up moments later. Hypocrite, his move 'Ringmaster' more epithet than laud. But I would suggest begin caring about your neighbors. It's getting uglier, and will increase in speed and scope the more babies we spit out and then ignore. I feel bad for our future, never seeing how close we were to something grand. But don't worry, you'll be dead by then, right? Happy Thanksgiving, choke on a wing.

So if I go to a portrait studio and pay them $300 for x-amount of sheets of pictures and a CD with those pictures on it, why would it be illegal to remove a watermark from a picture that I purchased especially if the picture in question is not being used commercially? Btw great post thank you for the assist!

Great post! Thanks for the awesome walkthrough. I don't understand why anyone opposed to removing a watermark is even viewing this site. The title is "How to remove watermark from an image or picture". If you have no interest in the knowledge in this article, don't read it and don't comment. You don't see us coming into a "How to be the most annoying person on the internet" forum and telling you it isn't right to propose a conflicting argument if you think something is wrong. However, you found yourself here, which begs the question of why you all were on a forum you claim to be about stealing? Just nothing better to do? At least the people wanting to learn this technique have a hobby ... something to do with their spare time other than bitch and complain about the way other people choose to spend their time. You are all being ridiculous. As we all heard in kindergarten, if you don't have anything nice to say........... Get a life, find something to research that you agree with. It will warm your soul to be optimistic and helpful rather than the big bunch of Debbie Downers we are seeing here in this thread.

Not always people are stealing ..when it comes to watermarks. I made some nice pictures and i posted some on a website, than my p.c. broke down and all my pictures gone. i did remember i posted some and went there to copy my pictures....ones on my p.c. they had a huge name of that site across them...tell me how could it be i steal my own pictures????

Interesting points since I posted long ago. I don't get how you got awarded $9,000 for two photos. I've never seen a photo even one in print to order framed for more than a couple hundred and that would be a hell of a unique award winning shot. One out of several thousand make that grade.

For those who've gotten suckered by the digital phenom that makes anyone a photographer. You make the 'shooter' sign an agreement up front that the "raw" digital property is yours, not theirs or the deals off as you can't throw a rock and not hit a 'photographer'. For that matter you can rent a fine camera and just get somebody who can point and click.

Seriously, of the billions of photo's out there how much can my work be of any significant value to get emotional over? and why I quit the for profit and just have fun.

As I pointed out if your work is that good there are ways to make a water mark that can't be removed or make the image right click disabled. As was pointed out by another, the best your going to get at best is a small poor quality photo photo.

I still say it's a good tutorial. btw the term watermark is from the days of using film where there is some artistry involved. Digital cameras produce some inherent variants, too.

I'm sure if I tried, I could find a number of cases citing photographic watermarks - of all things - as considerably LESS than effective access controls. The very fact that you can open a digitally watermarked photograph with trivial software measures may, in and of itself, disqualify the "technology". Yes, I am familiar with a3B; no, I have never seen a case where watermarking is considered - in all circumstances - to be a process requiring the consent of the copyright owner to invoke, as this is oftentimes misleading and can be used in bad faith by parties who DO NOT actually own the source material. Not having access to PACER, though, I cannot state equivocally that a successful case has never been made (settlements do not count, as they are an agreement not to pursue legal recourse, not an actual admission of guilt).

=======================================================(b) Additional Violations.—(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; =======================================================

Here is the subsection most people cite to back up their claims. However:

=======================================================(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.

(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. ...(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.=======================================================

In short, the First Amendment in this country is the trump card.tl;dr: Blow it out yer ass.

"Well I have a story where I found a high school cheerleading group removed the watermark of 2 images to be used as promotional material for them. They could have purchased the images but they chose not to. The legal battle was very short as they settled outside of court.

I received $9,320.

So think again if you are going to steal photographers work. We have ways of finding and will punish you with the law for theft."

You "won" a concession, you ass. Just once, I'd like to see a case like this go to court; do you honestly think you'd fare as well arguing "loss of profits" to a judge and jury when the "infringing party" is a group of high school cheerleaders who likely never saw a dime? You think that suit would play out well before the media, or as any sort of conscionable act?

Here's a question, and be honest: how much business have you seen since then? Anyone curious about how you intend to use the subjects you shoot?

Kaushik, I hope you get caught for publishing this tutorial, copyright is exactly that copyright. Photographer have to work very hard to sell anything these days, this kind of tutorial is killing the photography industry.

"At least the people wanting to learn this technique have a hobby ... something to do with their spare time other than bitch and complain about the way other people choose to spend their time."

Boo Hoo, don't be an ass. There is a huge difference between people who do this as a hobby and those of us who do it for a living. I have every right to track down and confront people who steal my work. I regularly search for unauthorized use of my images, and when I find them (and I do) my lawyer gets involved.

I'm fine with watermarks, however some people go crazy and destroy the picture with it for no reason. If anything use this to move it so that the image can be enjoyed and give credit. Another issue i've seen lately are people watermarking things that are clearly not their own... and for that I think this is a legitimate means to deface the thief.

For all the whining professional photogs out there- how about not charging someone $200 to take pictures (that is JUST the taking of the pictures- it includes no digital images and no retouching) and then I will feel start to feel real bad for you when people steal your images. It's highway robbery to charge over $200 for a hours worth of your time. I don't get paid that at my job and I can live quite comfortably on my salary. If there was a reasonable shooting fee and then they charged $30 an image or whatever, I wouldn't feel the need to complain. But no, you don't. When you start charging reasonable prices for taking pictures, I'll start feeling bad for you when your clients attempt to take them without paying ridiculous fees.

"Well I have a story where I found a high school cheerleading group removed the watermark of 2 images to be used as promotional material for them. They could have purchased the images but they chose not to. The legal battle was very short as they settled outside of court.

I received $9,320."

What kind of DOUCHEBAG takes high school cheerleaders to court over 2 pictures and then is proud of themselves for getting almost $10,000 out of it? Obviously, a TURBO DOUCHEBAG.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever complained about the state of education in the US? Or about how schools don't have enough money, etc.? If you have, I hope you always include your story about how you managed to suck $9,230 out of one school's budget. :-)

I am suprised at all the posts that you guys have written that are getting defensive over this like its your right to remove copyright.If you had talent and invested your livelyhood into photography,i guarantee you would be pretty upset if someone removed your name from your work.It doesnt matter what the reason is.It is stealing something that belongs to someone else.stealing is stealing.get a life.

If the cheerleaders were unaware what removing copyright meant,they know now.too bad they learned the hard way,such is life.stealing someones work,wrong.and yes,I have complained about the state of education in the US.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

I dont understand people who remove watermarks and then later on use photos they didnt pay for and risk for being charged thousands of dollars.....so stupid and of course no respect to authors... SHAME ON YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Considering how much piracy goes on in the software world, I say you photofags are PATHETIC.

A PC/console title costs 60$. The money that goes away in creating a decent one starts at 5 million dollars, and that's the absolute minimum. It involves the work of dozens of people (who are much smarter than you) for many months. Oh, and it involves a great business risk because of that, which can't be said for you (sitting on your butt for 2 hours).

So, you think that your shitty photo costs the same or more compared to that ? HA ! Retards.

And to the especially shitty ones who said "OMGZ I hope you go to jail, I wish all sorts of bad stuff to you" - well, I hope that your overweight kid downloads a cracked game on his PC, and the FBI walks in and blow out his brains, how about that ?

Oh, and one more thing, photofags - I used to care about licensing the photos that I used so far, but after reading the comments on this article, I am absolutely pissed how retarded, lame and greedy you came out to be - so from now on I'll do my best NOT to give you money, you are just too pathetic.

This tutorial should be illegal. I am a photographer & am seriously offended by this. Stealing someone's photograph, claiming it for yourself, and going as far as ALTERING the photos is not just morally wrong, it's fraud, theft and illegal. I hope all of you get found out by the people you've stolen photos from & they sue your pants off. Maybe as you're sitting in prison you'll grow a conscience as the consequences for your actions slap you in the face day after day. Just remember, what goes around comes around.

How truly amazing it is that there are so many people that use absolutely irrelevant comparisons (and name calling) to JUSTIFY theft.

We have Mr. Photofag's post above that compares a $5 million dollar software development program to image theft. Others have said that there are murders and rapes going on all over the world and the theft of a picture is nothing.

Mr. Photofag even accuses all photographers of doing nothing but sitting on their butts for two hours a day, as if photographers do nothing more than roll over on one cheek and fart out pictures and therefore his anger is justified (and so will his future thefts of other peoples works).

Everyone of you that has posted an example of much more terrible atrocities in the world to justify or dismiss the crime of theft of another persons work, have no real grasp...

Excellent tutorial ! Actually, I just wanted to see if gimp offered something like photoshop's content-aware fill. Now I know how to use it. Thanks. And for those who cry about stealing... Oh well... I'm a musician, people download my album for free everyday, while I have hundreds of physical copies of it waiting to be sold. If I didn't want to have my music ''stolen'' I would have released it on vinyl only. By accepting to release my music on digital media, I knew people would be able to download my work for free. It was expected. I still released it on CD because the benifits from doing so were higher than the risk. Same goes for photographers. I've seen people dumb enough to use pictures with the watermark still on them. People are gonna do it anyway. You block your image from being right-clicked ? I make a screencap, then crop it. Don't want your image stolen ? Don't put it online. And frankly, I don't even know how removing a watermark could be stealing, as long as you don't use the image, I don't see where the problem is. Some people just want to learn new photoshop skills. It's called curiosity, not stealing. Get over yourselves.

I wonder how many people walk into a supermarket or store thinking..."If they didn't want this to be stolen, they should not have put it in a place with public access".

Photographers and Artists (including musicians) who sell or market their works online (or digitally) should not have to be subjected to theft of their work just because it is so damn easy and anonymous.

"And frankly, I don't even know how removing a watermark could be stealing, as long as you don't use the image..."

When you download a photo or illustration with a watermark and then set out to remove the watermark, it is the exact same as removing the anti-shoplifting devices so you can get away with your theft without paying for what is being sold.

You "photographers" are hilarious. You act like copyright is an immutable, moral right equivalent to theft. But (a) it is not immutable, it is a right solely by law. And the law isn't necessarily good. Laws are only good insofar as they make society better off, and it is becoming increasingly clear that copyright does not make society better off (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm for one). It might make _some_ photographers better off, and it certainly makes large content distributors better off, but that is not equivalent to making society better off. Just because you take photos, etc. doesn't entitle you to profit from it. Calling yourself a "photographer" doesn't entitle you to a living from selling photos. And frankly, for most of you, copying (or even removing watermarks) doesn't harm you as much as obscurity does.

And (b), copying a photo is not theft. Actually think about it for a second. Actually do it. Seriously. Get past the negative emotion and think about it. When I go into your house and steal your grandmother's antique brooch I am excluding you from using it. I have taken that particular thing, removed it from your possession, and put it in my possession. I am preventing you from putting the brooch on and lording it around your house, or whatever you like to do with the brooch. But when I go to your website and download a copy of an image, am I excluding you from using it? No, because you still have the original (unless there's a secret side of downloading which I don't understand). By downloading that image I might be preventing you from selling me that photo (or more generally, preventing you from determining exactly how you think the relationship between me and the photo should be), but that is completely different from theft. That's copyright violation, so see (a) again.

^You are a horrible person. I thought about what you had to say and have determined that you are simply just morally defective. I can't believe that people like you vote! God this world going to hell in a hand basket.

A funny fact - I followed a tutorial for a specific vector image. And then I saw that a moron submitted the end result of this tutorial on istockphoto, 100% identical, not even bothering to change a thing or two (the author of the tutorial confirms that in the comments section).

So, the moron followed a tutorial made by somebody else, and decided to sell it for 50 bucks on istockphoto, and now what, if I follow the same tutorial and use the end image a lawyer pig from istockphoto will contact me and try to sue me because I use a istockphoto asset without a license ???

This is an old version of gimp. I have 2.6. My sister's dad won't give any of her pictures to us, only the sample pictures, which is really irritating, and I want to be able to remove these water marks so we can at least have some good pictures. Can you post how to do it on The newest version of gimp?

Can anyone give me the link where I can download Photoshop CS5? I lost the installation and when I try to download it again from several links I got it didn't work and way too complicated for a newbie like me.

As a Photographer: I say if you learn anything from this article then well done, it s good to learn.

Fellow photographers: Point to understand water mark thumbs and let them waist there time on taking a watermark off a 100Kb pic while I have the 26-30Mb image safe, for people that respect ME and MY work.. :-) Great read though keep it up... :-)

Final point... If you use a photo that looks rubbish (tried to remove WM) after you have played with it, Think of what that says about YOU and what your selling Top marks... :-)) .... lol

I know this is an old thread now. I just had to say that no one really addressed what the man said about him paying $125.00 an hour for 2 hours for a photographer for his wedding. He was not satisfied and got no prints. What justifies the prices for photographers? Is it the thought that people must be spending a fortune already on their wedding, so why not add to it? There is absolutely NO value in paying someone doctor's wages to walk around taking pictures if you are getting nothing out of it. Ala cart, right? Gotta buy from the ala cart afterwards. I just recently did a model shoot wherein I paid $70.00 for the shoot and now must pay $10 for a 5X7 of each image if I want them. And it's me...I'm the photographed subject.

While I don't condone ripping off photographers, I think that charging people an arm and a leg for your time is ridiculous. You aren't a Neurologist, you are a photographer. Bring down your fees and print prices and people will stop removing your marks so they can go to Wal-Mart and pay $10.00 for an entire set of images.

I am looking at these comments, and I am wondering WHAT MAKES THESE PHOTOGRAPHERS ANY BETTER?! The one comment I read about the guy who took the cheerleaders to court over the image, that dude is a SERIOUS IDIOT. REALLY?!?!?! You took cheerleaders to court?! REALLY?! Just because you didn't get your little dollar?! Well you got 9 thousand more of them now, so I hope you are happy.I am clicking on this to remove a watermark from an image from a famous Korean magazine. I want to edit the photo for a website so others can have enjoyment and see my work. Guess what the magazine did. They put a HUGE watermark across the image. REALLY?!?!?! Everyone knows you took the picture, so you don't need to be so obnoxious about it. Everyone on that website knows it's Jessica Jung's photospread from Star1 magazine. NO ONE IS GOING TO STEAL IT! WHO WOULD ANYWAY?!?!??!I don't understand why all of you so called 'photographers' are making a big deal of this. You take a few minutes to take a picture, you get the supplies you need. You don't need a whole bunch of money! Maybe if you want to guarantee payment, DONT PUT IT ON THE FRIKING INTERNET! Sell it somewhere else!!!! are you really gonna get mad when people remove your watermark????? It's just wrong when you 'photographers' take your pictures and act all selfish about it. Maybe some people can't afford to pay for the pic, don't know how, or just can't because of the place they live in maybe??? If you see someone using something of yours without permission, or you don't like it, TOO DAMN BAD. You shouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place.

This is not theft, get your facts straight before you go and wish bad things upon people. It's disgraceful. Really.

If you are daunted by the scare tactics some are trying to use here, dont then.

Dont be mean either and resubmit the artwork to many of the free uploading storage services for image cataloging in google if they piss you off- it will create a nasty headache and grounds for dismissal in most cases for anyone trying to prove you knowingly used it from its origin.

So, I think I hear The Entitlement Generation loud and clear here: We have no skills,. Wwe don't value your skills because that would make us too aware of our own shortcomings. We steal because we can. We don't value art because we have no idea what it takes to create any.

To put a crummy and completely inadequate wedding-photographer into the same class as a fine-artist who may have easily spent 100 hours in creating, manipulating, marketing, and selling an image to bona-fide buyers; and who may have to spend thousands of dollars on various pieces of equipment used to create that work of art –just shows how ignorant those making such statements are.

I'm really glad that I saw this page while I continue to spend many hundreds of hours perfecting my artworks, and many more learning the ins and outs of marketing it while still somehow protecting it from people like you so that I can someday make a living with it. It makes me all the more glad I haven't yet embarked into marketing it online. I will definitely either not put it online, or will post only unusable, low-res files there and pursue the sale of limited-edition originals through physical galleries instead, as I have gradually come to conclude is the only copyright-safe practice, as well as the only way to retain its value.

To all you pimply-faced [or is that your pimply ass? I can't really tell from your FB pages], self-entitled, lazy, undisciplined, and talentless thieves: F.U. CSrs!

for those who are complaining; put your face on your artwork so nobody could steal it from you.. increase your protection instead of complaining. just like viruses and anti-viruses; upgrade to infect and upgrade to disinfect.

Mother of God People, This tutorial demonstrates a method of removing watermarks from pictures, which is not inherently illegal to do, as some people have been so kind to point out, yes, there is a way to use this method illegally, and no the original author does not endorse such a thing. This tut does NOT violate any law, it simply provides information that can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, much like learning to pick locks, not everyone who knows how to do that (myself included) is intending to break into a house. Not everyone who knows how to listen to a safe dial so as to open it without knowing the code is going to use that knowledge to steal from safes, not everyone who uses command prompt and other computer programs is intending to hack someone else. So please, if you open yourself up to security problems, and something happens, yes it is immoral for someone to have done that to you, but you did leave the door cracked, and for some, that is all the excuse they need. The best defense is elimination of the security issue. So don't lump everyone together, not everyone who uses this tut is a criminal, and writing it was never a crime. And if you think otherwise, you must not truly understand the difference between actually committing a crime, and simply having the knowledge to commit one.

The best (smartest) comment here goes to: MAY 2 2012 7:34PMAs a Photographer: I say if you learn anything from this article then well done, it s good to learn.

Fellow photographers: Point to understand water mark thumbs and let them waist there time on taking a watermark off a 100Kb pic while I have the 26-30Mb image safe, for people that respect ME and MY work.. :-) Great read though keep it up... :-)

Final point... If you use a photo that looks rubbish (tried to remove WM) after you have played with it, Think of what that says about YOU and what your selling Top marks... :-)) .... lol

This tutorial is inappropriate in so many ways, but mostly for photographers who actually work hard making a living with their camera equipment and software. Why don't the nay sayers try paying their rent with their camera and experience the loss of income from screening, watermark removal, etc.

Yo, can you spell federal offense?17 USC § 1202 - INTEGRITY OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,...

So, you want to help people commit a crime that carries a penalty 7 times regular copyright infringement? Are you nuts? Obviously you do not make an income from your photos, or you would not be posting instructions for committing a Federal Offense.

"I think its funny how all these people are getting worked up over people using image editing software. No, forget people who actually rob banks and steal cars, this guy removed a watermark, I'm gonna call my lawyer." Laugh your way to jail. The penalties are much higher than for stealing a car.

The beauty of the internet is you don't have to give a shit. If you want to try to scare someone with the bullshit legal angle go ahead. I'll respond by pointing out that a simple circumvention AND a very likely anti scenario for your scare tactics comes from redistribution of image files. If an altered image turns up in multiple locations, ie; free storage services, fan sites, blogs, the burden of proof for infringement (penalties) is laid in the lap of the prosecution. Very easy way to get it thrown out of court if you want to be mean (which, I would considering some of the prickish attitudes displayed here, let them waste $ getting it to that point) or if you are nice, a wee middle finger at Mr. Cheerleader spanker.

So. Reality is, someone interested in really getting away with infringement will simply distribute modified images via a few free repository services. Its only a matter of hours for things to be copied and redistributed many more times. The act of removal just became anonymous. No case. It now becomes the holders burden to prove ownership since the media is available in multiple locations. Your huge settlement just became a cease and desist letter, with very small teeth, and in most cases, removable dentures.

I just took my daughter to get her photos taken professionally and paid a good penny for the few I received. I have them all via cd - with watermarks plastered all over the images - and told I can purchase more for $$$... I am content with the idea of removing the watermark of these in the small prints that they are, as long as I have them and they fit in a small frame...

LOL, people be quiet please? You can't do anything about this article... If anyone attempts to censor this there will be a Streisand effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) to your own misfortune.Anyways, had a fun time watching this flame war!! :P

To everyone who says they can't think of ANY reason to remove a watermark other than to steal the image, you need a better imagination. I'm a web designer, and I remove watermarks in images that I use to create design mockups. If I don't end up using the image, I've lost no money. If I DO end up using it, then I pay for it. No stealing. And my client gets to see a mockup of their design without an ugly watermark in it.

99.9% of the people viewing this tutorial will fit into these categories.

1) People who will never use the info.

2) People who will use it on their own personal projects.

3) People who would steal your work, but wouldn't have paid for it anyway since the use they have for it is trivial.

I guess I'll add you guys in with the movie studios, music labels, and all the other businesses out there that are more concerned with fucking over their customers rather than giving them what they want. There sure as hell won't be a professional photographer at my wedding. I hope the limo taking me and my wife to the airport for our honeymoon flight passes by an unemployed photographer sleeping on a park bench.

For all those claiming this is illegal and should never be used, there are perfectly legitimate needs for this sort of thing. Yes, there are many who will abuse it and use it illlegally, but should that keep those of us with a legal need from being able to have this sort of tool and information?

Case in point - I recently had a photography session done. The photographer sent me watermarked proofs to review and choose which images I wanted to purchase. I then bought a disc of the images, which was mailed to me. However, the photographer failed to verify the files after burning the disc, and one of the images was corrupted and could not be opened. What's more, when I contacted this idiot photographer about the image, she informed me that she had already deleted the originals, and they could not be retrieved.

So, I've paid for an image, and through no fault of my own, I have no access to it, and the only viable copy that exists anywhere is the watermarked proof! Should I be deprived of the product I paid for just because someone else may use the same procedure for less than legal purposes?

People, don't be ridiculous. This page is showing how to remove BAD WATERMARKS, I mean, those ones that is done by people that DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT of distribute them, but they think they can only because they create PDF files for them.

I agree that photographers have a right to make a living but to charge $10 a picture to download one is quite a bit when he took 200+ photos(not all manually). Set a reasonable fee and people won't be looking to "steal" them...After all, after a couple of weeks he will be deleting them anyway. They are of no value to him.

You people are absurd. What if someone watermarked their own images and somehow lost or deleted the original? They would need to know how to do this. And he didn't create the ABILITY to remove watermarks, the makers of the software did. So sue them.

Thanks, too many of these stock photo sites are charging for their images now. If you put it online expect people to want it. Photographers really are a precious bunch. The easier to remove a watermark the better. Thanks heaps for the tutorial.

I had MY pictures on my Ipod and could not get them on my new computer...so I used a program but it had water marks across MY pictures... awhile later I bought the full product so they would remove the water marks.... but they had upgraded their program in the meantime... so here I am with my own pictures with watermarks on them. They said because of the upgrade it won't come off ( which was the only reason I bought the program)... they had suggested a program to remove water marks... I am NOT having very good luck...

here my case, a true example of not being a thief but still need to remove watermark I have done a professional photoshooting to my sonsthe photographer gave me small preview of the pictures, with watermark.i need to remove it to use them as savescreen, i have already paid the photographer for stamps and service.the resolution ist not enough for printing, so it ist not stealing, jusr have a better previewcheers

Before speaking of stealing, I wonder if some people on this discussion realize that paying 200 US dollars A MONTH just to get a few pictures is NOT a possible option to people who don't have that much money to spend.

I respect artists, I also create artistic stuff but creation also has its limits.

It's not even a matter of protecting a creation, it's just a matter of making money and having people pay.

If they weren't in so much debt they wouldn't have to charge so much for taxes,import/export,manufacturing goods..etc.

Then Manufacturers (Camera,Film) have to pay more for resources (Payroll Taxes,Misc Fees,Parts,Lenses,Film..etc) Which in turn, They have to charge more in order to make a profit....

Then Big-Box Stores (Bestbuy,Staples,Walmart,Etc..) Buy those products, And Mark-up with an Undisclosed percentage.. Then the Consumer (Us) has to pay Top dollar in order for them to make a profit from it after paying off Payroll,401k's,Maintenance,Advertising,etc...

Then the Professionals (Photographers) have to spend 1000's of dollars on Cameras,Lenses,Lights,Software,etc. In order to stay ahead of the technology curve and maintain a good business. Because face it, You need the right tool for the job and your business wont look successful with old outdated crap.

So to Offset your Spending Habits, You have to charge more for your prints and/or create Watermarks to protect your images from a "potential sale" that you could have made money on.

Moral of this story is: If people didn't have to charge sooooooo much in the 1st place, We wouldn't have to look for "alternative" ways to acquire things that shouldn't cost that much to begin with.

Also, Whatever happened to doing things for the love of it?? Why does everyone try to make a profit out of something they never intended to in the 1st place?

If i made something like a picture or a work of art, I would just be happy that people like my work enough to steal it :D

Get real peeps, You cant take it with you, Your arguing over Printed Paper

I removed the watermarks from some photos yesterday, and smugly thought to myself what a great heist I'd done on the little git who put them there. Imagine my surprise today when my trousers fell down, a bird shat on my head, and all the gears on my car went in reverse. Someone up there is watching us, people! You have been warned!!!!!

I don't quite follow you. If the pictures have a watermark, this will show on the print. You can't have watermarks when viewing then have it magically removed when printing. Yeah, you can use some JavaScript trick to overlay a watermark over the images when viewing in a browser, if that's what you are asking. But that won't protect your pictures.

For all of you who cannot think of a legit reason to remove watermarks you all have no imagination. Just suppose an evil hacker gained access to all of your photos and put a watermark on all of them and then demanded a ransom to get back the originals.This example is somewhat ridiculous but it could happen.

I'm under the impression that 80% of the people butthurt over a watermarked image removal post are the same group of people reposting it in an effort to get the creator of the article to remove this post. Unfortunately websites track IP address' so you just look stupid constantly.

I don't want a watermark on my desktop background,facebook cover photo or any other private use I may use the image for, calling someone scum for removing a watermark which inherently ruins the image in the first place even a decade later with no real person to buy the unwatermarked imaged from.

No, stop trying to make money off of photos, if I wanted to pay you for the picture I'd pay you. No picture on the internet is worth buying.

False- we bought my brother's senior pictues, but they actually would ONLY give us digital copies with the watermark on them. Even though we purchased close to 500 dollars worth of photos, the only digital ones we have are with watermarks. So relax.

Hey if I use this tutorial to remove a watermark from your photograph I guess that prevents you from going out and doing your job. As 1 stolen copyrighted picture now will cripple you forever, and make you lose oh so much money; as of course all of you make masterpieces with every click of the camera...

Honestly, I hate the concept of intellectual property. Ideas cannot be owned. There is essentially no difference between the vehement defence against copyright infringement that the commenters advocate and all those asshat companies that sit on patents waiting to sue while not actually doing any work.

You are not photographers if you follow this tack, you are parasites pretending to be artists for the purpose of suing.

Lets be fucking honest here, how hard is it to take a picture. Cameras are expensive true.. but that can be said for any business. You are taking what was a hobby before and now turning it into an inflated cash cow.

Thanks, ill take all my photos myself, with my camera, and Im sure they'll be to my satisfaction instead of paying (most of) you disgusting dicks.

all u complainer should just file a complaint against the one's who wrote those program n see ur azz could win against someone with money n smart to write the program!!!my point is money rule world i don't care if ur in the us or in freaking communist country same shitz

I agree with Amelia. The Photos I want to remove the watermark from ARE my own. The photo company that took the photos were nice enough to give me access to my profile so I could use the photos as i see fit, but there was a catch... the photos had a watermark print across them. I tried emailing the photo company back and even offered to pay for the photos for the Digital Copies to be put on a flash drive, but I never got a reply back, so this was in my opinion, this is my only option.

Perfect solution for scans of photos from my film camera which have printed on these ugly orange/yellow date-time stamp. Why is illegal to remove this 'watermark' from my own photos? What if I use this technique to remove lens dust artifacts? Really, some people don't understand the value of knowledge and prefer to make non constructive comments to any site that gives usefull information about some art (in this case digital photography).

I'm digitizing my personal photo archive with lot's of pictures, dias and videos. Some have annoying "watermarks" in the form of date and time at bad places ruining an othervice good pictures and some have dust/scratches in the wrong place. I'm not going to remove all "watermarks" but few of them and I don't feel to guilty about it.Has anyone seen a tool that would work similarly on my home videos?

One more thingReading the thread here caught my interest of totally other reasons than I expected.

I assume you all professionals with time over to point fingers always paid your taxes and declared ALL your sources of income, right. You always ask for permissions before taking the picture and, as in the wedding case, make the terms and conditions crystal clear for the customer before making any kind of deal. At least that's what I read between the lines.As an amatuer photo hobbyist I tend to agree with the father of one anonymous above: "If you are afraid of theft, don't publish it on the internet". Someone might like it ;)

One friend of mine once said: "It's not a question about honest people or dishonest, it's more a question about those who got caught and those who didn't." or with other more familiar words: "Let the one without guilt throw the first stone."

Internet must be FREE! Where is that FREE internet ? Everyone try to get some money but do not forget that Internet is like an ocean, you can always sail for free. There is some people who try to earn some money form this international waters and we can stop them.And most of the websites also steal photos and sell after that! Why?If we can why not try get it? This is the Law, people Low and you should get use of it.

Jesus Christ, I never realized there were so many judgmental people. I'm here because I want to use a photo taken before 1923 (which places the photo safely in the public domain) that some idiotic website tossed their watermark on. Plus, if this method works, I'll be using it to remove the annoying date stamp from photos that I took after my mom messed with the settings. (Good tip: Never let your parents mess with your electronics if they don't really know what they're doing).

What if I took a photo myself, and left the date stamp on it, and then I wanted to remove it?

This tutorial would help me. And there, thats a fair reason for needing to know. This is why the internet is important and freedom of speech more so. Could you imagine if pages like this were taken down due to 'some people' robbing work? What do I then do?

To the idiot that said you should never have to remove a watermark because that is stealing. What an idiot you are, REALLY! My dad died about 2 months ago and left me all of his pictures. Going through those pictures, we found my mom's graduation proofs. The studio that took the pictures is no longer here,and the owner has passed away. Being that these "proofs" are the only pictures of my mom's senior picture (Thanks to a fire in 1982) I really would like to remove the logo and replace her pictures. But,OMG!!! I am a thief,right?? Come outside of the one way rut your mind travels in and make peace with the fact that you have no idea why someone would need this tool.

You may also consider the situation where someone gets scammed by a photographer. Unique event like a Diamond Wedding Anniversary. Photographer is booked. Verbal agreement assures the client that they will get a full set of the digital images for their own non-commercial use as part of the £500 fee for the day.

After the event the dodgy photographer then renegades on the deal. Waves small print around and refuses to give any digital copies out. Only copies now available are individual prints to buy at £25-£50 each. (There are over 100 photographs!! And dozens of people at the event)

The only way people from the event can now view the photo without spending another £2500 EACH is to look at them online. Online on a "order your photos" website. Of course, on this site every image has a watermark slap bang in the middle of the images.

Just like every trade out there, scammers are operating. And thanks to sites like this we have ways of dealing with those scammers.

Wow, really? How do you know that the photo he used, wasn't actually his own? He doesn't have to tell you that. It's just a demonstration. Relax. I am a photographer and I have removed my own watermark this way.

You do know you can write to people and ask for permission to use the photos! or pay a small fee and have access to all the photo's you want for any purpose. Once this is done, you have the permission and the access. Guilt free

Nice article. For me, the purpose is not commercial gain. I publish a small newsletter for my neighborhood and often want to include topical clip-art to illustrate an article. More and more clip art today is watermarked, making them either useless or tedious to repair. Sorry, but I'm not paying what may be $25 to $50 for a simple clip art image for my neighborhood, non-profit newsletter. Placing a watermark doesn't make me pay to have a non-marked version. What it does make me do is load up PS to remove it, or find one without marking -- which is getting ever more difficult

If I were producing a commercial piece and being paid for it, that would be a very different thing altogether -- I would definitely license the art properly. But I'm not. Clip art makers may not agree with my rationale and I expect they don't, but sorry....!